Not true. Nuclear works 24/7 without the need for battery storage and the cost and environmental damage associated with manufacturing batteries. Plus, it can be dialed up and down in response to demand.
We need to use all available tools to replace fossil fuels ASAP. Renewables and nuclear.
Where’s an example for an operating nuclear power-plant that can be dialed down to match demand?
Afaik they have lots of momentum (for days even), and even their propenents argue for them being critical for providing a base supply1. Never have I heard anyone claiming they’d be good for matching fluctuating demand. Can you back that up?
Or are you getting your anti-reneweblaes lobbying talking points mixed up? That argument is usually used for natural gas plants.
1 which doesn’t make sense in a renewables dominated grid.
That’s a super basic view on the science of nuclear power. As an engineer, I need a lot more than that, because it needs a lot more to put basic principles into working projects.
So, is there a nuclear powerplant, that exists outside of some powerpoint slides, that is actually used to match fluctuating generation from other energy sources and/or fluctuating demands?
All of the ones I know are/were used to provide a base supply by running more or less 24/7 at their designated output, not least because they need to do that to be even somehow economically feasible.
They do it in France. The term to google is “load following” nuclear power plants. All new ones have the capability.
Most are used for base load power generation, but this is for economic reasons (getting your money’s worth out of an expensive-to-build facility), not technical feasibility.
Natural gas is a cheaper load following alternative, but that isn’t an option when we’re talking about replacing fossil fuels.
I only had the time to read the executive summary of this thing, but I learned a bit more about nuclear power plants.
It’s still not enough for me to evaluate how well that can integrate with a grid dominated by renewables (can the load following be fast enough, to match wind and solar fluctuations) but still good to know more.
You got mislead my dude. Probably because there’s lot of propaganda for nuclear as it is needed to offload costs of building nuclear weapons, so especially USA, France and China are campaigning hard.
We dont need another finite fossil resource oligarchs can use to control us, we need to change societies habits so it complies with energy production.
For the actually relevant parts its easy enough to store the energy. Batteries are not the only possibility, water elevation, hydrogen, pressure cells just to name a few. But even if batteries were the only ones, it’s still worth manufacturing them compared to the costs of managing nuclear waste for timescales longer than human build structures exists.
Did a medieval person know what wages today would be? No
Do you know what the nuclear end storage would cost in 1000 years? No
But even for the time we can for see, in the best case scenario its an economically bad decission, in the worst case we poison the whole planet to a degree where no human life can exist.
Not true. Nuclear works 24/7 without the need for battery storage and the cost and environmental damage associated with manufacturing batteries. Plus, it can be dialed up and down in response to demand.
We need to use all available tools to replace fossil fuels ASAP. Renewables and nuclear.
Where’s an example for an operating nuclear power-plant that can be dialed down to match demand?
Afaik they have lots of momentum (for days even), and even their propenents argue for them being critical for providing a base supply1. Never have I heard anyone claiming they’d be good for matching fluctuating demand. Can you back that up?
Or are you getting your anti-reneweblaes lobbying talking points mixed up? That argument is usually used for natural gas plants.
1 which doesn’t make sense in a renewables dominated grid.
The closer the rods are to each other, the more collisions occur per unit time, and the more heat is generated.
That’s a super basic view on the science of nuclear power. As an engineer, I need a lot more than that, because it needs a lot more to put basic principles into working projects.
So, is there a nuclear powerplant, that exists outside of some powerpoint slides, that is actually used to match fluctuating generation from other energy sources and/or fluctuating demands?
All of the ones I know are/were used to provide a base supply by running more or less 24/7 at their designated output, not least because they need to do that to be even somehow economically feasible.
They do it in France. The term to google is “load following” nuclear power plants. All new ones have the capability.
Most are used for base load power generation, but this is for economic reasons (getting your money’s worth out of an expensive-to-build facility), not technical feasibility.
Natural gas is a cheaper load following alternative, but that isn’t an option when we’re talking about replacing fossil fuels.
Kudos for a measured response to my sometimes snarky tone.
https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2021/12/technical-and-economic-aspects-of-load-following-with-nuclear-power-plants_30eb3b02/29e7df00-en.pdf
I only had the time to read the executive summary of this thing, but I learned a bit more about nuclear power plants.
It’s still not enough for me to evaluate how well that can integrate with a grid dominated by renewables (can the load following be fast enough, to match wind and solar fluctuations) but still good to know more.
You got mislead my dude. Probably because there’s lot of propaganda for nuclear as it is needed to offload costs of building nuclear weapons, so especially USA, France and China are campaigning hard.
We dont need another finite fossil resource oligarchs can use to control us, we need to change societies habits so it complies with energy production. For the actually relevant parts its easy enough to store the energy. Batteries are not the only possibility, water elevation, hydrogen, pressure cells just to name a few. But even if batteries were the only ones, it’s still worth manufacturing them compared to the costs of managing nuclear waste for timescales longer than human build structures exists.
Did a medieval person know what wages today would be? No Do you know what the nuclear end storage would cost in 1000 years? No But even for the time we can for see, in the best case scenario its an economically bad decission, in the worst case we poison the whole planet to a degree where no human life can exist.